Quote from: Kiero;613015I suspect boredom, in that without something unusual there's no hook for them.

If they really can't get into anything which isn't fantasy or SF or horror or some other thing on that spectrum them the only solution may be "find friends who are not stunted children when it comes to their personal tastes".

If they are willing to read books or watch movies or whatever which aren't SF/horror/fantasy, it might be worth having a conversation with them as to why they won't extend the same breadth of interest to RPGs.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612657Yeah, use Leverage. Not that I even know what that is, but it's what you're looking for.

To answer your reply,

I didn't know you hated the Exalted system. If you hate percentiles then BRP is also obviously not suitable, but the # of skills is typically in the range of 30, most of which will default. Take a look at the free (non-illustrated) version of
Openquest if you're curious. But it sounds like you're set with nWoD.

As for the settings, these are all S&S settings, except Crusaders of the Amber Coast, which is historical. They all have magic at least as an option but by their nature the magic can be excised just as you seem to have planned doing with Creation.

Quote from: Warthur;612728So, Kiero, what I'm now hearing is that you really don't want to engage with magic systems at all as a player or as a GM, but a) you want to play exceptional people who happen to be just about within the bounds of what is humanly possible if you squint and let action movie physics and biology apply, and b) the other members of your group want to play people who can do shit normal people can't do.

On this basis I can see why the Exalted-without-Exalts game didn't fly - I agree with your players that there's not much point playing in the Exalted setting unless the Exalty magic powers are in play. Rather than starting with a game which gave you what you wanted and your players what they wanted, you started with a game which gave the players what they wanted and then gutted it until it more resembled what you wanted.

I second the recommendation of seeking out the Leverage RPG - or, hell, any other game which is based around action movies. There's not a hell of a lot of options out there because what you're aiming at is a fairly narrow level of escapism, but you have options. And see about meeting your players halfway. Pitch the game specifically as an action movie-type game and make it clear that the PCs will be shit-hot cream of the crop dudes who will be able to pull off eye-watering stunts at the cutting edge of what is humanly possible. Reassure them that they will get their escapism because they'll be doing stuff which is well beyond the scope of what normal people do - they'll be doing things only intensely trained professionals could even hope to attempt. Moreover, emphasise what the PCs will be able to do rather than what you're not offering. Nothing saps enthusiasm more than a pitch which spends more time talking about what you can't do in the campaign than it does talking about what you can do.

I suspect there might be mileage in a Leverage-style RPG (using nWoD is an easier sell than it's native system, which might be a bit too strange for them). If only I could sit them down in front of the pilot. One of the players likes Burn Notice, so I know they'd enjoy it at least.

It's a pretty perfect example of a modern, magic-free, PC party where everyone has a useful role to play.

Quote from: Kiero;613015I suspect boredom, in that without something unusual there's no hook for them.

Well can you do something "unusual" without being supernatural? Or at least without being superpowerful?

RPGpundit

General consensus is now not-historical, possibly contemporary. I pitched these three:

Assassin's Creed: Modern Assassin - A complete inverse of the usual situation in the games where the present doesn't really matter that much. Indeed there's going to be somewhere between little and no Animus-time because that's quite individual-centric in a way that doesn't work so well for an ensemble PC group. Instead the idea here is we have a bunch of capable people; Assassins, ex-Templars, prodigies with a high concentration of First Civilisation DNA, and so on. They hop around the globe dealing with issues relating to Abstergo/Templar organisations, finding Precursor sites/tech, saving the world, that sort of thing. There's a whole premise around being set post-AC3's ending, but I won't spoil it for those still waiting to play. By the time we do come round to this, you'll probably have played it.

Mass Effect: First Contact - It's 2154 and humanity has recently experienced an explosion in it's technological capabilities courtesy of the xenoarchaeological find on Mars. The Systems Alliance is a military organisation largely subservient to the desires of the nations who make up it's command structure. But some within it's halls dream of it becoming a political movement in its own right. With that in mind, they've managed to put a team of highly skilled specialists from a range of nations together with the most advanced explorator ship in the fleet with one mission in mind: to seek out extraterrestrial life. Everyone believes the first contact humanity had with a sapient alien species was in 2157 when they encountered the turians for the first time. What they don't know is what is contained in classified files from an incident three years earlier...

Hazardous Outcomes - Outcome is a black bag CIA project which has been uncovered by recent revelations from a whistleblower high up in the military-industrial complex. It began as a supersoldier program in the 1970s that morphed into one utilising sleeper operatives who might be spies, assassins or saboteurs. While Outcome hasn't been directly compromised yet, the people at the top are cleaning house. Everything and everyone connected to Outcome is being quietly liquidated, and that includes the PCs. Yes, if you've seen the Bourne films, this is exactly the sort of techno-thriller premise I've got in mind for this.


Middle one was discounted by everyone pretty quickly because we're already playing Mass Effect for our main game and we might get similarity-fatigue.

So far it's mixed whether people prefer the first or third; I might aim to bring the two together somehow.

No one has ever been talked out of a preference.

You'll just need to find players more suited to the preferences you have, or find some common ground. You can't really do anything else.

I think you're giving out too much information in your pitches.  They don't need to know what the basis of the story is, just the ruleset and the basic gist.

Too many choices and too much democracy as far as choosing a game will always yield this result.  If you are the DM, you choose the game.

For our own club, we have focus groups every year or so.  We talk about potential games with everyone present, but my approach is different.  I'll write every ruleset we possess down, and just leave it at that unless there's something else required.

For example, there would usually be a lot more but I will use five.

• Rifts - Starting Rifts Earth characters from the main book.
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - All standard characters, beginning from Wissenland.  Any miniature you own can be the basis, avoiding the random career roll.
• AD&D 1st Edition - All supplements allowed, Greyhawk or Dragonlance originals.
• Shadowrun 4th Edition - 2070 characters, 2050 original adventures
• World of Darkness - Mortal characters.  Dogs of War, Second Sight and 13th Precinct supplements.

Not a lot of game information other than what they need to make characters

Write down everything you want to run, but don't give story information away.  Just ask what game rules they want to play and then run the game you want to run.

Note that the choice you make won't be unanimously agreed upon by your players.  I've been accused of ignoring women and the handicapped lobby during these focus groups.

Quote from: Blackhand;613864I think you're giving out too much information in your pitches.  They don't need to know what the basis of the story is, just the ruleset and the basic gist.

Too many choices and too much democracy as far as choosing a game will always yield this result.  If you are the DM, you choose the game.

For our own club, we have focus groups every year or so.  We talk about potential games with everyone present, but my approach is different.  I'll write every ruleset we possess down, and just leave it at that unless there's something else required.

For example, there would usually be a lot more but I will use five.

• Rifts - Starting Rifts Earth characters from the main book.
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - All standard characters, beginning from Wissenland.  Any miniature you own can be the basis, avoiding the random career roll.
• AD&D 1st Edition - All supplements allowed, Greyhawk or Dragonlance originals.
• Shadowrun 4th Edition - 2070 characters, 2050 original adventures
• World of Darkness - Mortal characters.  Dogs of War, Second Sight and 13th Precinct supplements.

Not a lot of game information other than what they need to make characters

Write down everything you want to run, but don't give story information away.  Just ask what game rules they want to play and then run the game you want to run.

Note that the choice you make won't be unanimously agreed upon by your players.  I've been accused of ignoring women and the handicapped lobby during these focus groups.

You nailed my problem. I was not seeing it clearly.

The one gaming group of mine that goes into crisis mode when selecting the system and setting does it because everyone dissects and bitches about every last little detail.

My other groups all let the gm run what they please, and the players may join or not.

Quote from: Blackhand;613864I think you're giving out too much information in your pitches.  They don't need to know what the basis of the story is, just the ruleset and the basic gist.

Too many choices and too much democracy as far as choosing a game will always yield this result.  If you are the DM, you choose the game.

For our own club, we have focus groups every year or so.  We talk about potential games with everyone present, but my approach is different.  I'll write every ruleset we possess down, and just leave it at that unless there's something else required.

For example, there would usually be a lot more but I will use five.

• Rifts - Starting Rifts Earth characters from the main book.
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - All standard characters, beginning from Wissenland.  Any miniature you own can be the basis, avoiding the random career roll.
• AD&D 1st Edition - All supplements allowed, Greyhawk or Dragonlance originals.
• Shadowrun 4th Edition - 2070 characters, 2050 original adventures
• World of Darkness - Mortal characters.  Dogs of War, Second Sight and 13th Precinct supplements.

Not a lot of game information other than what they need to make characters

Write down everything you want to run, but don't give story information away.  Just ask what game rules they want to play and then run the game you want to run.

Note that the choice you make won't be unanimously agreed upon by your players.  I've been accused of ignoring women and the handicapped lobby during these focus groups.

I want willing and active engagement with the premise, buy-in before I start. Not people who are showing up out of obligation and might be looking fondly forward to when the game is done so they can do something else. I'd rather all the pain up-front before I've even invested in something, than down the line as the game disintegrates as all the differing, but unspoken, expectations worm their way out of the woodwork.

Previous games have worked perfectly fine with a collaborative setup, I see no reason to change that now. I'd much rather run something people are enthusiastic about than something they're just participating in to humour me.

Quote from: Kiero;613947I want willing and active engagement with the premise, buy-in before I start. Not people who are showing up out of obligation and might be looking fondly forward to when the game is done so they can do something else. I'd rather all the pain up-front before I've even invested in something, than down the line as the game disintegrates as all the differing, but unspoken, expectations worm their way out of the woodwork.

Previous games have worked perfectly fine with a collaborative setup, I see no reason to change that now. I'd much rather run something people are enthusiastic about than something they're just participating in to humour me.

These are some of the big reasons as to why some past rpg games I've played in, ended up collapsing.